Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 14. Evidence » Article 4. Witnesses Generally
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401 (2026)

How adverse party may be examined; effect of refusal to testify (subsection (b) of Supreme Court Rule 2:607 and subsection (c) of Supreme Court Rule 2:611 derived from subsection A of this section)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.

B. If any party, required by another to testify on his behalf, refuses to testify, the court, officer, or person before whom the proceeding is pending, may, in addition to punishing said party as for contempt, dismiss the action, or other proceeding of the party so refusing, as to the whole or any part thereof, or may strike out and disregard the plea, answer, or other defense of such party, or any part thereof, as justice may require.

Code 1950, §§ 8-290, 8-291; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Teleguz v. Com., 643 S.E.2d 708 (Va. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Teleguz v. Com., 643 S.E.2d 708 (Va. 2007). · cites it 4× “Hostile Witness Teleguz argues that the trial court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to treat Pavel as a hostile witness.”
Jonathan Nathaniel Ramsey v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 757 S.E.2d 576 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× ““Additionally, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that Code § 8.01-401 also applies ‘where the witness has no adverse interest, but is shown to be adverse or hostile to the party introducing him.”
Maxey v. Commonwealth, 495 S.E.2d 536 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “” Under Code § 8.01-401, a party may call a witness “having an adverse interest” and “may examine such person according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.”
Weller v. Commonwealth, 434 S.E.2d 330 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Additionally, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that Code § 8.01-401 also applies “where the witness has no adverse interest, but is shown to be adverse or hostile to the party introducing him.”
Campbell v. Campbell, 642 S.E.2d 769 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, Code § 8.01-401(A) provides that “[a] party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.”
Campbell v. Campbell, 642 S.E.2d 769 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, Code § 8.01-401(A) provides that "[a] party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.”
Smallwood v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “” All of this testimony was relevant to the relationship between appellant and his wife as well as a possible motive for murder. The Commonwealth properly called Norton during the case-in-chief as she provided information relevant to the charges.”
Travis v. Finley, 548 S.E.2d 906 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “We find Code § 8.01-401(B) does not apply because mother was not called upon by another to "testify on his behalf.”
Chiang v. Commonwealth, 365 S.E.2d 778 (Va. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “2d 1, 5 (1947); Code § 8.01-401; see also Moore v. Commonwealth, 202 Va.”
Mastin v. Theirjung, 384 S.E.2d 86 (Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “The decision is inapposite because it is grounded on the principle embodied in Code §§ 8-291 and -292, 2 now Code §§ 8.01-401 (A) and -403, that a litigant cannot call an adverse party as a witness and impeach his character by evidence of bad reputation.”
Kelvin Lynn Whitehead v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 522 S.E.2d 904 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “In pertinent part, Code § 8.01-401(A), which applies in both civil and criminal cases, see McCue v.”
Davis v. Davis, 357 S.E.2d 495 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “She relies principally on Code § 8.01-401 (B), which provides, “If any party, required by another to testify on his behalf, refuses to testify, the court, officer, or person before whom the proceeding is pending, may, in addition to punishing said party as for contempt, dismiss…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401(6): 1 case
Hicks v. Been, 57 Va. Cir. 151 (2001).
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401(8): 2 cases
Hicks v. Been, 57 Va. Cir. 151 (2001).
Murphy v. Murphy, 36 Va. Cir. 96 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1995).
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401(A): 20 cases
Teleguz v. Com., 643 S.E.2d 708 (Va. 2007). “Hostile Witness Teleguz argues that the trial court erred when it allowed the Commonwealth to treat Pavel as a hostile witness.”
Jonathan Nathaniel Ramsey v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 757 S.E.2d 576 (Va. Ct. App. 2014). ““Additionally, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that Code § 8.01-401 also applies ‘where the witness has no adverse interest, but is shown to be adverse or hostile to the party introducing him.”
Maxey v. Commonwealth, 495 S.E.2d 536 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “” Under Code § 8.01-401, a party may call a witness “having an adverse interest” and “may examine such person according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.”
Campbell v. Campbell, 642 S.E.2d 769 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). “Furthermore, Code § 8.01-401(A) provides that “[a] party called to testify for another, having an adverse interest, may be examined by such other party according to the rules applicable to cross-examination.”
Weller v. Commonwealth, 434 S.E.2d 330 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “Additionally, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that Code § 8.01-401 also applies “where the witness has no adverse interest, but is shown to be adverse or hostile to the party introducing him.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401(B): 8 cases
Travis v. Finley, 548 S.E.2d 906 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). “We find Code § 8.01-401(B) does not apply because mother was not called upon by another to "testify on his behalf.”
Jewell v. Ferrell & Assocs., 17 Va. Cir. 372 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989).
Thornber v. Ballard, 28 Va. Cir. 76 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).
Ungaro v. Quality Sys. Assocs., 45 Va. Cir. 204 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1998).
Dickstein v. Liboro, 14 Va. Cir. 321 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.